A tribunal has denied a solicitor accused of improper behaviour over the sending of anti-vaccine letters the chance to bring medical expert witness evidence to her final hearing.
Lois Bayliss applied to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal today to be allowed to adduce expert statements on medicine and ethics when her case is heard next month.
Dr Peter Fields, for Bayliss, said the solicitor had a right to use this evidence to defend herself in the light of assumptions being made in the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s case. But the tribunal rejected the application, urging both parties to focus on the nature of the allegations rather than enter into wider discussions about Covid-19 vaccines.
Bayliss, the sole director of Broad Yorkshire Law based in Sheffield, is alleged to have improperly sought to have relied upon her standing and role as a solicitor.
The SRA alleges that over the course of less than three weeks in February 2022, she sent letters to up to 450 individuals at up to 237 schools and GP surgeries threatening that recipients would face criminal and/or civil liability.
Bayliss, who has an unblemished 17-year record as a solicitor, has made it clear that she intends to defend herself against the allegations. A Gofundme page organised by her has raised almost £38,000 through 1,100 donations and has a fundraising target of £200,000. According to the page, this figure is to cover the SRA’s estimated £90,750 costs, defence barrister fees and a ‘potentially substantial fine’.
Fields said that Bayliss held a ‘genuine belief’ in what she was arguing for and so her integrity could not be questioned. But the SRA’s case was that she was acting ‘against mainstream science’ and it referred to a ‘body of evidence’ against her anti-vaccine beliefs, so therefore she needed to be able to bring experts who would provide an alternative view.
Fields said that the experts potentially relied on were not ‘tin foil hat-wearing idealogues’ but rather professors who could explain why she acted as she did. ‘They are not allowing Miss Bayliss to prove scientifically that what she said was correct and cannot be misleading,’ added Fields.
Ben Tankel, for the SRA, said it was not the regulator’s role to determine the merits of Bayliss’ views on vaccines, adding that the case was about alleged threats of legal action brought by Bayliss.
Alison Kellett, chair of the tribunal panel, said the SDT was ‘struggling to see where and why’ expert evidence on vaccines was relevant to the allegations. Dismissing the application to adduce expert evidence, Kellett said Bayliss’ right to defend herself was not prejudiced by the decision. She added that parties should focus on the ‘real issues’ in the case – namely what the impact of receiving these letters was on non-legally qualified people and whether they would be perceived as threatening.
The four-day substantive hearing is set to begin on 2 September.
